Founded on 15th April 1923; revitalised under the leadership of the then Secretary General Com EX Jospeh in 1957, faced innumberable onslaughts by the bureaucracy of Indian Audit & Accounts Department under CAG of India; fought disruptions patronised by CAG many a time; champions the cause of audit and accounts employees, the Central Government employees and workers and toiling masses.

Dear Comrades, The programme given vide Circular 31-2010 for observance of 22ndDecember 2010 as 'Replace Qualification Pay with Four AdvanceIncrements (on passing of departmental examination) Day' has evokedgood response, as per the reports so far received at Head Quarters. As stated in Circular 31 the second stage of the campaign forreplacing the qualification pay with four advance increments is tostart from 3rd January 2011 – signature campaign week.. All the units may take steps for effective campaign for thesuccessful implementation of the signature campaign from 3rd January2011 to 7th January 2011. The format for the signature campaign isgiven elsewhere in this circular.MEETING WITH DAI Meeting with DAI will be on 18th January 2010. We have submitted thefollowing agenda items for discussion (vide letter No AIA/B-1/81/2010date 24th Dec 2010). 1. Replacement of Qualification Pay with four advance increments 2. Permission for AAO (adhoc) to negotiate incentive exam3. Simplification of syllabus for Information Technology (Theory) forSAS and incentive examinations4. Grant of incentive to Accountant/Auditor & SA for discharging theduties of DEOs 5. Stoppage of transfer on tour basis in NE Region offices6. Declaring the SOGE (A&E) – common paper - passed candidates of A&E)offices of Kerala & Tamil Nadu as SAS passed7. Stop intervention in the day to day functioning of the Associationsand extension of functional facility.CWC MEETING Notification for CWC meeting has already been dispatched. The venueshall be Gandhi Peace Foundation Hall near ITO. Accommodation has beenarranged at Garhwal Bhawan for 24th & 25th February 2010. Accommodation for 23rd Feb could not be arranged because centraltrade unions have already booked all available accommodation in Delhifor the Parliament March on 23rd February 2010.WOMEN'S CONVENTION The Women's Convention being organised by the Confederation would beheld at Kolkata on 7-8 Feb 2011. (Circular 32-2010) All Units may intimate the HQr of the number of women delegates beingdeputed for the Convention with their names and details of arrival.Kindly remember that COC WB has to be intimated about the number ofdelegates etc not later than 10th Jan 2011. With regardsYours fraternally

(M.S.Raja)Secretary GeneralFormat for Signature Campaign

ToP(AG)/DGA/DA/DDA…………..

Sir, Please find enclosed herewith a memorandum signed members of thisAssociation addressed to the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 9DDU Marg, New Delhi-110124. It is requested that the memorandum may please be forwarded to CAG of India. Thanking youYours faithfully

Sir,The High Court of Madras in their judgement dated 30.12. 2007 in writpetition No 13258 of 2003 (Union of India & others vs. A Palanivel &others have upheld the order of 20.11.2002 passed by CAT Madras Benchmade on OA No 229 of 2002. The Supreme Court of India has dismissedthe SLP filed against this judgement of Madras High Court,

According to this judgement, all auditors on passing the DepartmentalConfirmatory examination may be granted 4 advance increments.

Since this is a judgement in rem, it is requested that it may beimplemented in respect of Auditors and Accountants of IA&AD.

It is further requested that 4(four) advance increments replacing theexisting qualification pay may please be granted to allauditors/accountants from the date following the date on which theyhave qualified in the departmental confirmatory examination.

It is here-by notified, under Article 9 D of the Constitution of AllIndia Audit & Accounts Association, that the Central Working Committeeof All India Audit & Accounts Association will meet at New Delhi on24th & 25th February 2011 to transact the following business.

Agenda

1. To consider developments in the Departmental Front and to decidefuture course of action there-of.

2. To discuss organisational front and to take appropriate decisions there-on.

3. To consider developments in the Common front of Central GovtEmployees and to take decisions there-on.

4. Any other matter with permission of Chair

As per Article 9 D of the Constitution only one delegate peraffiliated Association can attend the CWC meet.

All the affiliates should clear HQr quota upto and including 31stDecember 2010 failing which they shall not be entitled either asdelegate or observer. .

The venue of the CWC meeting shall be Gandhi Peace Foundation Hall,DDU Marg, Near ITO, New Delhi.

Delegation fee of Rs 400/- shall be charged per delegate/observer.

Sd/- (M. S. Raja)

Secretary General

Article 9D - CENTRAL WORKING COMMITTEE: The Association shall holdCentral Working Committee Meeting, at least once in a calendar year,represented by the Central Executive Committee Members of theAssociation and one delegates from each of the FederatingAssociations. The Secretary / General Secretary of the FederatingAssociations shall be delegates to the Central Working CommitteeMeetings. However, if the Secretary/ General Secretary, for any validreason, shall be unable to attend CWC meeting, he/she will nominateany other representative as delegate. The representative so nominatedby the Secretary/ General Secretary of the Federating Association hasto be an office bearer of the Federating Association and shall have toproduce authority letter of nomination from the natural authorizeddelegate i.e. Secretary/ General Secretary.

Note:

Accommodation is arranged at Garhwal Bhawan for 24th & 25th February 2011.********

Dear Comrades, In late 1950s and 1960s the All India Audit & Accounts Associationwas functioning from a rented accommodation. In the second half of1960, an organisational decision was taken to have own accommodationin Delhi and the funds were raised. But the situation after the oneday strike on 19th September 1968 forced the organisation to spend theamount raised for own building to meet the exigency of victimisation.

Then it was in 1986, when Com: CSV Warrier was the Secretary General,the Association once again started working for having ownaccommodation. Com Warrier applied for a plot under GhaziabadDevelopment Authority. Another application was made in the name of ComSK Vyas (the then President of the Association) also. A plot wasallotted in the name of Com Warrier, in the draw of lot that followed,at Kaushambi just inside Ghaziabad – few yards away from Anand ViharISBT.

By the time the allotment materialised Com Warrier had relinquishedthe post of Secretary General and Com SMA Jinnah had taken over asSecretary General. The other formalities were completed and the plotwas acquired during the time of Com Jinnah. Com Warrier was insistingon transferring the title deed of the plot and formation of trustwhich somehow dragged on.

The construction of a building did not materialise for many reasonsand the cost went escalating. By the time, in 1994 the UP HousingBoard came up with another scheme of ready built houses forresidential purposes in Vasundhara, Ghaziabad. The All India Audit &Accounts Association decided to apply for one house. As per theGhaziabad Development Authority condition the organization could notapply for allotment of the House. Hence, it was decided to submit theapplication for allotment of house in the name of the then secretarygeneral, who happened to be Com A.B. Sen and it was decided that theapplication would be made in the name of AB Sen, the then SecretaryGeneral. With the help of CITU, we could get the house allotted in thename of AB Sen, the then Secretary General. The National Executivetook the appropriate decisions which were subsequently ratified by theWorking Committee. For this purpose a call for raising the buildingfund was given to all the affiliated units, which was hugely respondedby the units. The funds were raised and the payment was made. Thus theAll India Audit & Accounts Association had its own head quarter atHouse No 1089, Sector 15, Vasundhara, Dist. Ghaziabad.

Simultaneously, the Association decided to buy one more house, ie theadjoining one -1090- from CITU which was allotted in the name of ComMK Pandhe and to meet the expenditure, it was decided to dispose offthe plot allotted and acquired in the name of com Warrier. Thedecision was communicated to Com Warrier and he – who had a massiveheart attack by the time – complied with the organisational decisionand authorised the then Secretary General AB Sen through a power ofattorney to execute the sales deed.

In December 1995, Com MK Pandhe inaugurated Auditlekha Bhawan at15/1089-1090, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, UP and from 1997 the All IndiaAudit & Accounts Association started functioning from there.

But the formal transfer of the houses to the Association remained tobe done. It was only after 2004 the process of completing a legalmechanism so as to enable transfer the houses to the Association wereseriously pursued. After continuous discussion and the persistentefforts of the National Executive Committee, constitution for a Trustwas approved by the Special Conference in October 2008. The trust -named after Com CSV Warrier – was registered in January 2009.

The National Executive Committee has been consistently pursuing thetransfer of both the houses to CSV Warrier memorial trust since then.Com MK Pandhe transferred the house no 1090 to CSV Warrier MemorialTrust on 11th January 2010.

Com. AB Sen had assured to a delegation of NE that he would transferthe house once Com Pandhe transfers the house 1090. But the efforts ofthe NE members did not succeed even after Com. M. K. Pandhetransferred the building. Com Nageswara Rao, Additional SecretaryGeneral of the Association, who was authorised by the NE to discusswith AB Sen, reported to the National Executive Committee in August2010 that his efforts are not being responded to properly by Com ABSen.

As AB Sen had been keeping away from the All India Audit & AccountsAssociation and of late been seen with disruptors of audit andaccounts movement, Secretary General requested Com S Radhakrishna, whowas member of the National Executive between 1986 and 1997 and wasalso Vice President of the Association during 1989 – 1997, to talk toAB Sen so as to facilitate the transfer of the house to CSV WarrierMemorial Trust.

Com Radhakrishna had four rounds of telephonic talk with AB Sen andfinally reported that talks with AB Sen has not yielded the desiredresult on transfer of the house. In the meantime an e-mail has beenreceived from AB Sen stating "vacate my house immediately" (Copyenclosed). The copy of the e-mail on summary of Com Radhakrishna'stalk with AB Sen is enclosed (with the consent of Com Radhakrishna).The e-mail is self explanatory. Copy of the letter the Associationaddressed to AB Sen is also enclosed.

This may please be reported to the Executive Committee, the activistsand the general membership.

With regardsYours fraternally

(M.S.Raja)Secretary General

Com Radhakrishna's letterDear Com Raja

I am writing this letter to put records straight regarding thebackground and reasons which prompted me to open a dialogue with ComSen regarding the property of All India Audit & Accounts Associationlocated in the 'Vasundhara', Ghaziabad. As you are aware I was a partof National Executive when both house dwellings in 'Vasundhara'Ghaziabad where our Hqrs is located at present was purchased and alsohad participated in the inaugural function of the building as VicePresident of the Organisation. To meet the conditions of GhaziabadDevelopment Authority the NE at that time had taken a decision topurchase the dwellings in the name of Com Sen and Com Pandhe. The mainsource of funds for the purchase of these houses came from thecontributions made by membership all over the country and the extrarealisation of amount we had made by selling of a plot which theorganisation had purchased earlier in the name of Com Warrier thenSecretary General. I have a longing desire that the properties whichwas in the name of the individuals must be transferred to theorganization. Now as the Organization in the name of 'Com Warrier Ifelt that transfer of properties to the Trust should be completed atthe earliest.. I was also happy when property in the name of ComPandhe was promptly transferred. When we along with President ComDorai Pandiayan met in Delhi during last week of October 2010 you hadmentioned about some hurdles you are encountering in the transfer ofproperty which the organization had purchased in the name of Com Sen.As I had worked with Com Sen in the National Executive and was alsobeing a party to the decision making process of the organization atthat time I felt whether I could be of any help in removing thosehurdle. You permitted me to go ahead and have a talk with Com Sen.Based on that clearance I opened a dialogue with Com Sen. After someinitial exchange of views I could understand that some of the claimsof Com Sen even after a lapse of three or four years after hisdemitting the office had not been settled. He had also a feeling thathe is being humiliated and being treated shabbily. Based on thosetalks when I contacted, you told me that even today he highlyrespected by the Organisation and personally by you also. Youclarified that there is only a difference of opinion on certainperceptions. However I did not go into that issue and only wantedsettlement of the dispute regarding the claims of Com Sen. After thisas promised you had forwarded me the Claims preferred by Com Sen andAuditors report on those claims. In fact the mail sent by you wasforwarding of the reply you had mailed Com Sen in 2008. After goingthrough the same I felt instead of going into entire thing thereshould be a way out for solving the issue. Considering that Com Senhad lead the organization for more than a decade as Secretary General& President and also the sacrifices he had made for the organisation Ifelt that this issue to be settled without much heat and light. Withconfidence of convincing you, few days back I had made an offer to ComSen stating that "I will request Com Raja to settle your claims ofabove Rs.4lakh without any interest and he should agree to transferthe property to the Organisation without any hurdles". The methodologyI had suggested was that you will prepare the cheque in the name ofCom Sen for the entire amount and will be deposited with a person inwhom both Com Sen and you had confidence and the cheque will be handedover to Com Sen simultaneously with his transferring of property. Forthat Com Sen had responded that he requires some time to think aboutthe proposal and also he would like to discuss with Com Prabhakarformer Finance Secretary of the Organisation. Therefore after fewdays gap I contacted Com Sen yesterday (15.12.2010). Com Sen said thatafter taking the opinion Com Prabhakar he has come to conclusion thatmy proposal is not acceptable to him. He had made lot of sacrificesfor the sake of Organisation already and asking him always to makesacrifice is not correct. Then I said if the issue is not settledamicably it may lead to legal complications which are not good for theOrganisations and individuals concerned in the long run. For which heresponded that "what to do" and expressed his helplessness. Ifrequired he is prepared to undergo the complications. Then Iconcluded my discussions with him stating that "there is no furtheruse in my continuing discussions in the mater and I will withdraw fromfurther negotiations and inform Raja accordingly". He responded"that's ok".I have briefly narrated the entire conversations I had with Com Sen onthe matter and I would like to withdraw myself from furtherinterfering in this matter. Thank you for the confidence you hadreposed in me and I assure you that I am always available to make myhumble contribution at any time as worker of the Organisation. To putthe matter transparently I am forwarding the copy of this letter toCom Sen for information.With greetings

As a very senior leader of our movement you are fully aware andactually involved in realising the dream of the membership since 1960sto have their own building for the All India Audit & AccountsAssociation. In realising it concrete steps were taken by you asSecretary General of the Association in mid-90s which resulted inacquiring a dwelling unit (1089) under Vasundhara Awas Yojana inSector 15, Vasundhara, Dt Ghaziabad (UP) in National Capital Region(NCR). Again it is because of your vision our Association acquiredadjacent dwelling unit (1090) which was allotted in the name of ComM.K. Pandhe.

But for certain legal issues involved regarding registration of thesedwelling units in the name of the Association, you were forced toregister the dwelling unit 1089 in your name.

Now the Association has resolved the legal issues and a Trust – CSVWarrier Memorial Trust – was registered in 2009.

The dwelling unit 1090 has since been transferred through a gift deed(registered on 11th January 2010) by Com M. K Pandhe to the CSVWarrier Memorial Trust.

The members of the All India Audit & Accounts Association alwaysremember you as a leader who realised the dream of having their ownbuilding in the NCR. To complete their dream, legal formality oftransferring the property to the CSV Warrier Memorial Trust (of theAll India Audit & Accounts Association) has to be completed and Ishall be thankful if you can intimate your convenience to complete theformalities so that the dwelling unit can be transferred at theearliest to the Trust formed by the All India Audit & AccountsAssociation.

Confederation of Central Government Employees and Workers met in itsNational Council at Mumbai on 1st December 2010.

The National Council reviewed the participation of the centralgovernment employees in the 7th September strike and concluded thatthe participation of central government employees did see lessparticipation of CG employees vis-à-vis the previous strike. TheConfederation observed that the massive victimisation in IA&AD had itsimpact on the participation of Audit & Accounts Employees through outthe country, with its spill over on other organisations in certainstations. The victimisation in certain circles in postal alsoadversely impacted the participation of postal employees in the strikein those stations.

Discussing over the issues in the national anomaly committee and thecommittee set up on MACPS the National Council came to the conclusionthat the government has no intention to settle any of the issues thatagitates the common employees. In effect, none of the issues raised inthe anomaly committee has been settled and no meeting has been heldfor nearly 10 months. It was reported by Com SK Vyas that theanomalies arisen after the 5th CPC were not settled and now the issuesout of SCPC are discussed.

The meeting came to the conclusion that the anomalies arisen fromSCPC recommendations are inherent ones and hence only a fresh wagerevision alone can remove these anomalies altogether. The meeting alsonoted that in the organised sector every other segment other than CGemployees do have a wage settlement after 5 years; the CG employeesare left out for 'special treatment'. It is the right of CG employeesfor a wage revision in every five year. Also the DA shall be mergedwith pay for all purposes as and when it crosses 50%, demanded theNational Council meeting.

The National Council meeting of the Confederation further noted thatthe element of Grade Pay is being attempted to be linked toperformance related pay and it has to be fought back. The meeting alsodecided to demand doing away with the system of pay band and grade payintroduced after 6 CPC.

The Meeting adopted a charter of demand on which the entiretyemployees are to be mobilised in the days to come. The charter ofdemands is:

1. Stop price rise; strengthen Public Distribution System (PDS)2. Stop down sizing, outsourcing, contractorisation, corporatisationand privatisation of governmental functions.3. Fill Up all vacant posts and create posts on functional requirements4. Revise wages of Central Government Employees with effect from1.1.2011 and every five years thereafter.5. Scrap the New Pension Scheme and extend the statutory definedbenefit Pension to all Central Government Employees irrespective ofthe date of recruitment.6. Regularise the Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS), daily rated workers,contingent and casual workers by bringing about a definite scheme ofregularisation7. Remove restriction imposed on Compassionate appointment (end thediscrimination compassionate ground appointment between the RailwayWorker and other CGEs)8. Stop the move to introduce the productivity linked wage system,Performance Related Pay, introduce Productivity Linked Bonus in alldepartments; remove the ceiling for bonus computation9. Settle all items of anomalies (including the MACP relatedanomalies) raised in the National Anomaly and Departmental AnomalyCommittee with in a fixed time frame of two months, set up the anomalycommittees in those Departments where it has not been set up till datewith the Standing Committee members of National Council, convene themeeting of the Departmental Council in all Ministries and Departmentonce in three month as envisaged in the JCM scheme10. Make the right to strike a legal right and stop curtailment of TU rights11. Implement all arbitration awards12. Raise the interest rate for GPF; Revise the OTA and Night DutyAllowance and stitching and clothing rates of uniforms13. Merger DA with Pay for all purposes including pension as and whenthe DA rates cross 50% mark14. Vacate all Trade Union victimisations.Confederation shall prepare campaign material and circulate the samevery shortly.

LAUNCH INTENSIVE CAMPAIN;

EDUCATE THE MEMBERSHIP; MOBILISE THEM &PREPARE THEM FOR STRUGGLE

The CHQ of All India Audit & Accounts Association endorses all thedecisions taken in the meeting of the National Council ofConfederation held at Mumbai on 1st December 2010. ConfederationCircular 22 is enclosed.The decisions taken in the National Council of Confederation gives usthe right opportunity to put our organisational machinery into actionand go to the mass of employees in full swing. The enclosedConfederation circular gives a road map for the actions in the days tocome – campaigns to mobilisation for parliament march and strike.

Every Unit should take special effort to take the message of theNational Council of Confederation to the mass of employees

WOMEN'SCONVENTION AT KOLKATA

Confederation National Council has decided to hold Convention ofWomen employees at Kolkata on 7th and 8th February 2011. The followingunits may arrange to mobilise women comrades for the Convention.

The National Council meeting of the Confederation was held at DGFASLICentral Labour Institute Chunabatti Road, Sion, Mumbai 400 022 on IstDecember, 2010 as per the notice issued on 11th November, 2010.Detailed minutes of the meeting indicating the names of participantsand the submissions made by the comrades who participated in thediscussions will be issued separately later. We convey the decisiontaken on each item of agenda subjected to deliberation at the meeting.The meeting was presided over by Com.S.K.Vyas, President, Confederation.Com.K.K.N. Kutty, Secretary General informed the house before theagenda was taken up for discussion that the BSNL employees are onstrike and the strike is slated to continue for three days against theattitude of the Government and its concerted efforts to make BSNL asick unit to pave way for the private telecom providers to push BSNLout of business so that they can amass profit at the cost of Indianpeople. He explained various steps taken by the Government in thisregard and how the BSNL was not permitted to even purchase technologyand material so that they would be able to compete effectively withother private players in the field. He also informed the house thatthe Government has again taken up the issue of disinvestment of 30% ofBSNL shares. The house adopted a resolution expressing its solidaritywith the striking workers of BSNL and the Secretary General was askedto convey the same to the leaders of the BSNL.Employees' Union andplace the same on Confederation website. ( Kindly see the resolutionplaced on the website)The meeting approved the agenda for discussion and accepted theproposal of Com. President to club item No.1 and 7 together as alsoItem No. 2 and 6.Item No. 1 and 5The review discussion on the extent of participation of CGEs in thegeneral strike of Working class on 7th September, 2010 was extensiveand the comrades who took part in the discussion did give wide rangingdetails of the efforts, undertaken, the success and failure, strengthand weakness. The consensus was that the participation despite thepositive feature of the INTUC unions joining the strike could havebeen better. It noted that some of the State Committees andaffiliates had not c concentrated on the campaign, to elicit theconscious and active participation of the grass root level members.The feeling of the employees especially in the Northern States thatthe issues specific to central government employees had not beenaddressed could not be effectively eradicated. Besides, the importanceof the struggle against the present economic policies, its cataclysmiceffect on the conditions of living of the working people, the impetusit provides to the organizational efficacy and capacity could not beeffectively brought home in these States. Wherever such efforts hadbeen undertaken the response has been, the meeting noted, very good.The meeting noted the efforts of the Chennai COC in reaching out tothe members by organizing campaign meetings and distribution ofpamphlets etc. in residential colonies. The vehicle Jathas anddistrict conventions organized by the Kerala State Committee and itsefforts in reaching out to the grass root level workers came in forappreciation. The West Bengal Comrades explained in detail of thesteps taken by the State COC in calling the meeting of all Secretariesof the units of the affiliates, distribution of centrally preparedpamphlets, organizing gate meetings prior to the strike and deployingactive workers on the day of strike in front of all offices etc. tomake the strike participation total in the State.The meeting noted that the large scale victimization in the offices ofthe Accountant General and in certain offices of the Postal Departmenthad an adverse impact in mobilizing the employees especially in theseorganizations. In the light of the deliberations, the meetingdecided:i. to formulate a charter of demands on CGE specific issuesii. To continue the campaign to stress the necessity of theparticipation in the general trade union action against the neoliberal economic policies, which are the root causes in non settlementof the demandsiii. To take steps to revamp the functioning of the State Committeesand for that objective in view convene (a) meeting of all StateCommittees to ensure that the annual conference and election of theState Committees are held within the specified time (b)to chalk outways and means to help the State Committees to bring about regulardemocratic functioning and interaction with the affiliated unions (c)to ensure that the communication between the CHQ and State Units isstrengthened (d) the circulars are translated into vernacular anddistributed. The said meeting will be convened on 24th Feb. 2010 atNew Delhi in which the Chq. Sectt. Members will take part.iv. To have larger participation of CGEs in the 23rd Feb. March toParliament bya) Requesting all State Committees to immediately organize stateconvention of all affiliated units and enlisting the comrades who areto be deployed for participating in the march to parliament on 23rdFeb. 2010.b) The CHQ in consultation with the State Committees will determinethe number of participants from each Statec) Larger mobilization will be ensured from the States of Delhi,Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab, U.P. H.P. and Madhya Pradesh.d) The CHQ will discuss with the States Committee of the above Statesof the finances required for arranging buses etc.Agenda Item No. 2 and 6.i. The meeting noted that the real wages of Central Governmentemployees have eroded significantly in as much as the inflation hadraised the prices of essential commodities especially of food itemsbeyond 175% whereas the DA compensation had been only to the extent of45%. The way in which the Govt. had been dilly dallying the anomalyissues of the 6th CPC has indicated unambiguously that it will havethe same fate of the 5th CPC anomalies. By January, 1st, 2011. the DAcomponent in the emoluments of CGEs will cross over 50%. The JCMfunctioning both at the National and Departmental level hasdeteriorated and meetings have become extremely irregular whereas atthe Departmental level it has become almost defunct. Many affiliatesof the Confederation have complained of the non- functioning of theJCM forum for one reason or the other. The meeting also noted thatthere had been no recommendation of the 6th CPC on the periodicity ofwage revision and in the case of PSU the Government had to concedetheir demand for wage agreements in every five year. In view of thesefactors, the meeting adopted a resolution to demand wage revision onthe expiry of the five year period i.e. with effect from 1.1.2011.The meeting decided to undertake intensive campaign on this issuethroughout the country.ii. This apart the meeting also discussed various pressing issues ofthe Central Govt. employees and decided to take the important issuesin the charter of demand and organize trade union action in pursuancethereon. The charter of demands adopted after discussion and thephased programme of action decided upon is annexed to this circularletter. The CHQ Sectt. will circulate a brief explanatory Note oneach demand to indicate the issues covered.iii. The meeting also discussed over the confusion created by the DOPTorder on the composition of the JCM whereby almost all the employeesin most of the Departments would be out of the ambit of the JCM. Themeeting after detailed discussions on the pros and cons of the issueadopted a resolution to demand: That the Councils of the JCM at all levels should have the cadres andcategories of employees who were participants in the Negotiating bodyat its inception through the Joint Intent irrespective of the changeof classification and pay scales or pay bands brought about later. Itwas also decided that it should be brought to the notice of theGovernment that no unilateral decision in the matter by the DOPT canbe taken as it would amount to violation of an agreement reachedbetween the employees and the Government.v. The meeting also adopted a resolution to the effect that thevarious entitlement like LTC facilities and air travel concession toNE regions, Daily allowance, entitled for the GovernmentalAccommodation etc. must be passed on Pay in the Pay Band plus theGrade Pay of an employee and not on any other criterion like Grade Payor classification of Posts etc.vi. The meeting noted with dissatisfaction that the recognition ofhospital under the CGHS for inpatient treatment of late has become anagging problem with the Health Ministry changing the procedure everynow and then and put the beneficiaries to extreme hardship in manycities. The Government's approach in the matter has, the meetingnoted, only helped the Private entrepreneurs in the Health industry toamass wealth and the recognition on the basis of the lowest tender hadbeen at a perilous cost of the CGHS beneficiaries. The meetingdecided to place before the Government the following suggestion forthe recognition of hospitals in each city.a. Identify the reputed hospitals in each city by a committee with themembers of beneficiaries in each town/city covered by the CGHS Schemeb. The Health Ministry must negotiate with these hospitals the rate atwhich they will provide the treatment to the Government officialstaking into accounts various facilities extended to these institutionsby the Govt.c. If the reputed hospitals are run by charitable trusts enjoying thetax benefits, they should be asked to treat the CGEs on normal marketrate as reduced by atleast 30%.vii. To raise before the Government the anomaly that has arisenespecially in the Postal Department on the introduction of MACP inreplacement of the time bound promotion scheme and seek amendment tothe existing clarification whereby the three proimotion scheme wouldnot be less beneficial than the existing scheme of time boundpromotion in any department.viii. To bring to the notice of the Government the injustice meted outto the cadres of LDC and UDCs by the 6th CPC whereby they becomeentitled to even lesser pay than the erstwhile Group D employees.While the Notice Servers in the Incometax Department and the Postmenin Postal Department are given higher Pay and Grade Pay the LDCs areassigned with lesser Grade Pay even though the minimum educationalqualification for recruitment in their case has been stipulated to be10+2 whereas those are assigned with higher grade Pay has to have onlyMatriculation for the initial recruitment. It was decided that theGovernment must be asked to upgrade all existing Lower Division andUpper Division or equivalent cadres in all Government Departmenteither as Executive Assistants with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200 asrecommended by the 6th CPC or assign them with the Grade pay ofatleast Rs. 2800/- if such whole scale up-gradation in any departmentis considered infeasible.ix. To demand the setting up of anomaly committees in allDepartments/Ministries and immediate convening of the DepartmentalCouncils as per the directive of the Department of Personnel andTraining. If for any reason the Anomaly committees are unable to beset up in any department/Ministry, the concerned Ministry/Departmentshould be asked to set up the Anomaly committees with the nominatedmembers of the Standing Committee of the National Council as has beendone in the case of many Ministries to resolve the anomalies arisingfrom the 5th CPC recommendations.Agenda Item No.3. National Anomaly Committee issues.Com. S.K. Vyas, President explained in detail the deliberation at theNational Anomaly Committee meeting and the sub committee meeting inwhich the MACP items were separately discussed. The clarificationsought by various members on these issues were provided. It wasdecided that in the case of MACP some more issues must be raised bythe Confederation before the next anomaly committee meeting as waspointed out by Com. K.V. Sridharan, General Secretary, All IndiaPostal Employees Union, Class III and many others. The meeting askedthe Secretary General to finalize the issue in discussion with thecomrades of NFPE.Agenda Item No.4. Issues raised before the National Council JCM.The Secretary General was asked to place on the website the issuesalready taken up by the Staff Side with the Government in brief andseek further items from all affiliates and COCs. This was agreed to.Agenda Item No.7 Organisational review:The meeting decided that:(i)the CHQ Sectt. should meet on 24th Feb. 2010 along with theSecretaries of all State Committees with a view that concrete stepsare taken to ensure that the State Committees are constituted with therepresentatives of the Districts; the new office bearers are electedif the two year term has been expired and to ensure that thecommunication between the State Committees and the CHQ on the one handand the State Committees and the District Committees on the other isproperly established and the State Committees are helped to functionas vehicles for implementation of the programmes chalked out by theConfederation in future.(ii)The National Women Convention will be held at Kolkata on 7th and8th February, 2010 and the Affiliates and State Committees will beentitled to depute the following number of delegates to participate inthe said convention.a. All India Audit and Accounts Association. 15b. Income tax Employees Federation 20c. National Federation of Postal Employees 30(f) Federation of Atomic Energy Employees 10(g) All India Civil Accounts Employees Assn. 10(h) Confederation of Puduchery State Employees 05(i) ISRO Employees Association 03(j) Ground Water Board 02(k) All other affiliates 02 each(l) All State Committees will nominate two delegates (selected fromtheir specific affiliates – i.e. Other than the All Indiaorganizations which are affiliated with the Confederation at theNational Level)The affiliated will report to the CHQ the names of the delegates whowill be attending the convention by 10th January, 2011 latest. Theaffiliated will take care that they do no nominate any lady comradefrom the State of West Bengal as the State Committee of West Bengalwho has taken the responsibility of making arrangements for theconvention would be nominating large number of lady comrades from thatstate to participate.(iii)The meeting also discussed the remittances of the subscriptiondue to the CHQ by the affiliates and the State Committee. Therepresentatives of the affiliates and the State Committee whoparticipated in the discussions on the subject agreed to clear thedues by 31st March, 2011 latest. The Secretary General was asked tointimate the dues to each affiliate separately by letters.(iv) The house on the basis of the discussion earlier held decidedthat the Confederation should ensure participation of sizeable numberof Central Government employees in the ensuing programme of "March toParliament" on 23rd February, 2010 for which the call has been givenby the Central Trade Unions. The CHQ sectt. was urged that a campaignprogramme is chalked out by which a member of the Sectt. attends theState Conventions/meetings convened for this purpose and the DelhiState Committee and the neighbouring State Committees are speciallymobilized for this purpose.Agenda Item No. 8.Com. President permitted only a few comrades to raise certainimportant issues under the agenda for paucity of time. The SecretaryGeneral, All India Canteen Employees Association raised the issue ofthe order of the Government in not filling up the vacancies in theCanteen as a permanent measure. Many comrades raised the issue of nonrepresentation of many affiliates in the meetings as also of the StateCommittees. It was suggested that after the proposed meeting of theState Committees on 24th Feb. 2010, the Sectt. must convene a meetingof the Chief Executives of all affiliates separately to revamp theorganizational functioning of the Confederation.Com. President in his concluding remarks appreciated the livelydiscussion in the meeting and thanked the Mumbai State Committee forthe excellent arrangements made by them for the conduct of themeeting, on behalf of the CHQ Sectt as also on behalf of theaffiliates and State Committees. The meeting was concluded at 9.00PM. With greetings,Yours fraternally,Sd/-K.K.N. KuttySecretary General.Charter of demands:1. Stop price rise; strengthen the PDS.2. Stop downsizing, outsourcing, contractorisation, corporatorisationand privatization of Governmental functions3. Fill up all vacant posts and create posts on functional requirements4. Revise wages of CGEs with effect from 1.1.2011 and every five yearsthereafter.5. Scrap the New Pension Scheme and extend the statutory definedbenefited pension to all Central Govt. employees irrespective of thedate of recruitment.6. Regularize the GDS, daily rated workers, contingent and casualworkers by brining about a definite scheme of regularization.7. Remove restriction imposed on compassionate appointment ( end thediscrimination on compassionate appointment between the Railwayworkers and other CGEs)8. Stop the move to introduce the productivity linked wage system;Performance related pay; introduce PLB to in all Departments; removethe ceiling of emoluments for bonus computation.9. Settle all items of anomalies (including the MACP relatedanomalies) raised in the National and Departmental Anomaly committeeswithin a fixed time frame of two months; set up the anomaly committeesin those Departments where it has not been set up till date with theStanding Committee members of the National Council; convene themeeting of the Departmental Council in all Ministries/Department oncein three month as envisaged in the JCM Scheme10. Make the right to strike a legal right and stop curtailment of T.U. rights11. Implement all arbitration awards12. Raise the interest rate for GPF. Revise the OTA and Night dutyallowance and stitching and clothing rates of uniforms13. Merge DA with Pay for all purposes including pension as and whenthe DA rates cross the 50% mark.14. Vacate all Trade Union victimizations.

Programme of Action:1. Submission of memorandum on the charter of demands with brief noteto explain each item in the charter.2. Two months long campaign to educate and mobilize the members byorganizing (a) State level conventions (b) district level conventions(c) Department level conventions (d) gate meetings in front of alloffices3. Day long Dharna at a specified Central Location at the State andDistrict Capitals and other important places4. To organize a March to the office of the Chairman of the StateWelfare Co-ordination Committees and submit a memorandum for onwardtransmission to the Cabinet Secretary.5. To organize a March to Parliament by Central Government employees at Delhi6. To culminate in a one day strike

(The CHQ in the next communication will indicate the date for each ofthe programme of action taking into account all factors)

The Qualification Pay for Auditors/Accounts has not been revised evenafter passage of more than two years on implementation of SCPC report.We had vide our letter dated AIA/B-1/31/2010 had requested CAG ofIndia to revise the qualification pay at par with the four advanceincrements that was in vogue upto 3rd CPC, in tune with the upholdingof the CAT Chennai judgement on granting of four advance increments toAuditors by the HC of Madras.

The Supreme Court of India in its judgement of 1st September 2010rejected the appeal of the government of India against the Madras HCjudgement. The judgement of CAT as well as HC Madras is a judgementwith universal applicability and hence it has to be implemented inrespect of all in the IA&AD. But what has been done by the Departmentis to implement it in respect of those who have gone to the CAT.

We have been demanding for quite long the re-introduction of thescheme of four advance increments on passing of departmentalconfirmatory examination for Auditors/Accountants. We re-iterated ourdemand for re-introduction of the scheme of four advance increments inplace of qualification pay (our letter AIA/B-1/72/2010 dt 29thNovember 2010) in the light of the Supreme Court upholding thejudgements of CAT & High Court, Madras.

All the units may therefore observe 22nd December 2010 as 'ReplaceQualification Pay with Four Advance Increments (on passing ofdepartmental examination) Day' by holding lunch hour demonstration andadopting the enclosed resolution and submitting the same to CAG ofIndia through proper channel.

Further, we may go for signature campaign amongst the mass ofemployees demanding implementation of Madras HC judgement on fouradvance increments on passing of departmental confirmatory examinationuniversally in IA&AD. Signature Campaign Week may be observed from 3rdJanuary to 7th January 2011. Material for signature campaign would becirculated separately.

With regardsYours fraternally

(M.S.Raja)Secretary General

RESOLUTION

This mass meeting of members of …………….Association, ……………….held on22nd Decemebr 2010 take note that the Supreme Court of India rejectedthe appeal by the government of India on the judgement of the HighCourt of Madras in Writ Petition 13258/2003. The High Court of Madrashad upheld the order passed by the CAT Madras Bench in OA 229/2002.

These judgements of CAT as well as HC of Madras upheld t that theAuditors of IA&AD are entitled for four advance increments as grantedto Accounts Assistants of Railway Accounts subsequent to a judgementof Supreme Court.

Since the implementation of 3rd CPC recommendations in 1973, theaudit and accounts employees have been demanding the restoration ofthe scheme of four advance increments to auditors & accountants onpassing of departmental confirmatory examination.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court upholding the decision givenby the HC of Madras upholds the merit of our demand.

This meeting therefore demand that the qualification pay that has notbeen revised after the SCPC report implementation may be revised andreplaced with the scheme of four advance increments with effect from1st January 2006.

This meeting of members of ………………….Association, …………..urges upon theComptroller & Auditor General of India to urgently intervene and grantfour advance increments to all auditors and accountants on passing ofdepartmental confirmatory examination with effect from 1.1.2006.

This meeting further request that the decision given by the HC ofMadras upheld by Supreme Court of India may be made applicable to alleligible personnel in IA&AD.

Resolve to submit a copy of this resolution to Hon'ble CAG of Indiathrough proper channel.

After two decades, the audit report of CAG and the CAG has become thetalk of the town and darling of media. Such an interest in the auditreport of CAG was evoked in late 1980s on the purchase of Bofors gun.The amount involved or the loss to the exchequer then was a paltry one(Rs 64 crores) compared to the amount (Rs 1.76 lakh crores) nowestimated to have been lost by the government on account of 2Gspectrum allocation.

In 1999 also, there was a furore – after the audit report on purchaseof coffins for carrying the martyrs of the Kargil war.

In 1989 and 1999, once the report was brought to the public domain,there was a orchestrated, virulent attack on the CAG – attributingbiases and malice. In 1999, the then defence minister – champion ofCAG's report in 1989 – wrote a book condemning CAG in a mostreprehensible language.

The attack on the institution of CAG and its independent functioningis nothing new. In 1990s, we could see similar attacks on the work ofCAG (i.e. IA&AD) by Chief Ministers of Kerala and Bihar, attributingmotives behind the reports.

It is akin to the statement made by a former President of the 'worldpolice' who termed non-alignment movement as an alignment/groupingagainst his country!

Nobody like CAG's audit report, but everybody enjoys it.

But there is a difference this time – no political party has venturedto attack the audit report on 2G spectrum allocation.

TIME TO GO TO THE PEOPLEFOR CAG, INDEPENDENT OF EXECUTIVE

It was long back in 1989 that we organised a convention on the needfor an independent CAG and financial independence to CAG of India.(Today, the constitutional safeguard is only to the extant ofdischarging its functions – which also is getting crippled on accountof financial strings applied by the executive).

The time is ripe for reviving the issue as it is hot and lively andcan get wide support of intelligentsia and political parties acrossthe spectrum. Ofcourse, the issue will have to be fine tuned totoday's' and tomorrows requirements – at the same time taking enoughprecautions of it not being misused.

The functional as well as financial independence is the key toeffective discharge of duties by CAG as envisioned by the Constitutionof India. With more than 35% vacancies and with a man power whoseaverage age is 50 what can be expected of a constitutional authority?With hardly 2% audit, the department could bring out this kind ofreports, with an effective man power what benefit would not accrue tothe nation with accounts being effectively checked and managed?

The fact that there is an element of internal sabotage in underminingthe scope of the role of CAG can also not be overlooked.

The national Executive would meet to discuss the details of holdingNational convention. A work paper would be finalised by the CHQ andwould be circulated. All units may also try to have regionalconvention after receipt of work paper.

BUT…

On allegations of Common Wealth Game – related scams, the CAG hasbeen entrusted with detailed audit – personnel from across the countryhave been drawn for the work.

Simultaneously, government has appointed a committee, also on CWGscams, headed by a former CAG, Shri VK Shunglu. Is it to scuttle orinfluence the audit done by the department? The track record of thehead of the committee is not giving much scope. This is the secondtime Shri Shunglu is selected by the Government (in the last fiveyears) to head an enquiry committee and the report of the earlierenquiry is yet not known to anybody.

CHQ had informed all through sms about the Ernakulam CAT, quashingthe chargesheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1964 against Com KAManuel, former General Secretary of Audit Category II Association,Kerala and ordering forthwith re-instatement with back wages. Copy ofthe judgement is attached.

The CAT has said what we have been telling all along – that thesedepartmental courts are akin to trial in kangaroo courts. But what canbe done when the chain itself get mad? The only option before thosesuffering under the vicious misuse of administrative power is tochallenge it organisationally while trudging the path of judiciarywith utmost care.

As expected, the department has taken interim stay from the CAT to gofor appeal in the Kerala High Court.

Those who speak of rule of law do not want to make it applicable tothem. They will fight in the higher courts with tax payer's money. Ifthe Accountants General who caused dismissal through fake trials wantsto challenge it, the department should ask them to spend from theirpockets.

This filing appeals in the higher courts with tax payers' money ismost immoral and illegal and against any audit concept.

150 YEARS OF IA&AD

Many units have reported that the local administration has intimatedthem in writing about the functions to be organised on 16th November2010 to commemorate the completion of 150 years of Indian Audit &Accounts Department.

The CHQ has not got any formal intimation from the CAG's office onany of such programmes. The units may decide locally, depending on theconditions prevailing there, on the participation in suchcelebrations.

We are indeed proud of the department and its achievements with inthe limited operational freedom granted. We are also happy to know that the present CAG has taken up some ofthe longstanding demands raised by this Association regardingexpanding the scope of Audit to new areas.

There is no doubt, the Association would be in the forefront indefending the department. But we would like remind on this occasionthat it is the bounden duty of those who read out rule book/riot actto the leaders and activists of the Association that 'Caesar's wifeshould be above suspicion'. Without compromising on the principledstand of the Association we would and should co-operate with thefunctions to commemorate the 150 years of Indian Audit & AccountsDepartment.

A CRITICAL VIEW

The proposed celebration is based on the colonial legacy. The IndianAudit & Accounts Department's functions are regulated, as on today, bythe DPC Act, 1971 ie as far as the independent India is concerned, astatute was enacted only 1971. Is it proper to celebrate 150 years?

So far as the attitude of the Gr A is concerned, it is still fully inthe colonial mindset, but for cosmetic talk of the constitution.

Some comrades were proposing that we should ask a special treat forthe employees during the 150th year.

Remember: In 1960, the department completed 100 year – centenary.Then the Association was de-recognised, the Secretary General wasunder suspension, hundreds of leaders and activists of the Associationthrough out the country were dismissed, suspended and hounded afterthe 1960 strike. In 2010, our comrades stand dismissed, suspended, chargesheeted, nopermission to hold meetings, many of the Accountants General do noteven meet and discuss the problems and chargesheet is given forholding lunch hour meetings.

Let us not have any illusions – we can achieve through strugglesonly, for that let us unite on and all. Every struggle woulddefinitely bring results, the unity and struggle has to be sustainedand furthered. There is no shortcut to unity and struggles.

The Application having been heard on 24.09.2010, the Tribunal on20.10.2010 delivered the following:-

ORDER

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 5th March,2009 and theAppellate Order dated 24.11.2009 the applicant has filed this OriginalApplication praying that the above orders may be quashed and theapplicant may be reinstated in service with all the Consequentialbenefits.2. The backdrop of the case is as follows. While the applicant wasworking as Section Officer, redesignated as Assistant Audit Officer,he was served with a memo dated 21.03.2007 directing the applicant tofile his explanation within seven days of the receipt of the Memo whyhe has physically manhandled Sri VK Praveen, a Group D staff of A&EOffice on 30.11.2006 at 6.15 P.M. For the above memo, the applicanthad filed his representation on 27th March,2007. Subsequentlyanother memo dated 16.4.2007 has been issued to the applicant allegingthat the applicant committed serious misconduct in violation of theprovisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) and Rule 7 of theCCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964 by participating in the agitation in theoffice premises from 19th December 2006 to 22nd December,2006 inconnection with the suspension of one S.V.Santhoshkumar,Sr.Accountant of AG(A&E) Office, Main Office, Thiruvananathapuram. Theapplicant also filed his stand, in the reply dated 7.5.2007 on denyingthe allegations levelled against him. Subsequent to the above twomemos, a charge memo dated 30.7.2007 has been served on the applicantproposing an enquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules,1965 along with theStatement of Imputations/Allegations as Annexure I in which it isalleged that the applicant while functioning as Section Officer in the Office of the Principal Accountant General(Audit), Kerala,Thiruvananthapuram abused, threatened and physically assaulted Shri VKPraveen, a Group D staff of Office of the Accountant General(A&E),Kerala on 30th November, 2006 at 6.15 P.M. and thereby indulgedin indiscipline and committed misconduct in a manner unbecoming of aGovernment servant thereby violated clause(iii) of sub rule (1) ofRule 3 of CCS(Conduct) Rules,1964. Four other detailed chargeswere also there. The above charge memo contains detailed Statement ofImputations of misconduct in respect of the Articles of Charges framed against the applicant. The applicant filed an explanation tothe above Articles of Charges on 29.9.2008 denying all the chargeslevelled against him. However, an enquiry has been ordered and onappointing an Enquiry Officer, an enquiry has been conducted and areport dated 29.9.2008 has been furnished and on the basis of thefindings entered into by the Enquiry Officer, the DisciplinaryAuthority passed a penalty of dismissal from service as per the orderdated 5th March, 2009, dismissing the applicant from service. Againstthe said order of dismissal, the applicant filed an appeal before theAppellate Authority. The Appellate Authority on considering the appealconfirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as per theAppellate Order dated 23rd October, 2009. Aggrieved by the aboveorders of punishment and the Appellate Order, the applicant filedthe present Original Application.

3. The Original Application has been admitted by this Tribunal andnotice has been ordered to the respondents. In pursuance of the noticereceived from this Tribunal, a reply statement has been filed on 13thMay, 2010, justifying the orders impugned. Further along with thereply statement, the respondents have filed Annexures R1(a) to R1(d) ,a copy of the show cause dated 21.2.2002 issued to the applicant, acopy of the memo dated 24.6.2002, a copy of the memo dated 18.9.2008and a copy of the memo dated 31.10.2008. The definite stand taken inthe reply statement is that as per the report of the InquiringAuthority the applicant ad abused, threatened and physically assaultedSri V.K.Praveen, a Group D staff of the A&E Office on 30.11.2006 inconnection with the agitational activities undertaken by theAssociations demanding revocation of suspension order issued againstone Santhoshkumar, a Senior Accountant and the charges framedagainst the applicant have been proved and on the basis of thefindings entered into in the enquiry report, the penalty order hasbeen passed. Further it is stated in the reply statement that it isnot mandatory under the provisions of the CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965 tohold any preliminary enquiry before initiating disciplinaryproceedings. In spite of that, a preliminary enquiry was alsoconducted during May to June,2007 and thereafter the charge memodated 30.07.2007 has been issued against the applicant. Further it isstated in the reply statement that the enquiry has been held strictlyin accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules,1965 and it is not necessary to examine the complainant at thetime of enquiry and if the preliminary enquiry conducted would showthat a prima facie case has been proved, the enquiry can be conducted.It is further stated in the reply statement that the provisionsof Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India regarding giving an opportunity to the delinquent officer has been substantiallycomplied with and the evidence adduced during the enquiry in supportof the charges levelled against the applicant is sufficient to holdhim guilty of the charges. The applicant was furnished with a copy ofthe enquiry report and even if any mistake or omission has beenoccurred in producing and marking the documents which the authoritywants to rely on, cannot be considered as a ground to reject theenquiry report, as such enquiry has not been vitiated. Further it isstated that regarding the non-examination of the complainant has beennever raised by the applicant during the enquiry and the entiredisciplinary proceedings were conducted in compliance with theprovisions of Rules 14 and 15 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules,1965 and therewas no violation of the provisions of these Rules. Further it isstated in para-30 of the reply statement that there is evidence toshow that the applicant engaged in dharna/Demonstration and inparticipating such dharna or Demonstration, the applicant hadcommitted a misconduct alleged against the applicant.

4. We have heard the learned Sr.Counsel appearing for the applicantShri M.K.Damodaran. Shri Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC(R1) and ShriO.V.Radhakrishnan learned Sr.Counsel along with Shri V.V.Asokan forthe respondents 2 to 4.We have also perused the documents produced inthe O.A. Firstly, the counsel submits that the applicant entered inthe service as Lower Division Clerk on 1.5.1987 and was promoted asSection Officer redesignated as Asstt.Audit Officer on 11.1.2005 andhe has got a total period of more than 22 years of unblemished serviceunder the Govt. of India. While the applicant was working as SectionOfficer , the Govt. of India introduced a modified pension schemecalled One Rank One Pension and for implementation of that schemethe then Accountant General(A &E), Kerala was planning to entrust thework of the office to outside agencies. To take a protest against theproposal to outsource the work of One Rank One Pension, theEmployees Association Service Organizations discussed the matter anddecided to resort a peaceful means of protest and on the basis ofsuch protest a peaceful agitation was organized and in connection withthat agitation one Santhosh Kumar, a Senior Accountant has beensuspended, which also caused for an agitation and an agitation at theorganizational level and as a matter of fact, the proposal tooutsource the work of One Rank One Pension Scheme has been droppedand thereafter the Accountant General was keeping animosity againstthe applicant as he being one of the members of the Associationof the employees who caused the agitation against the proposal of theAccountant General. With the said animosity the Accountant Generalwas keeping towards the applicant and such other employees foistedcertain cases against them and the personal Group D peon of theAccountant General, Praveen was made a tool to grind the axe againstthe applicant and thereby created a complaint as if received from thesaid Praveen and issued the memos dated 21.3.2007, a copy of which wasproduced andmarked as Annexure A1, a memo dated 16.4.2007 and the charge memodated 30.7.2007. To the above memos the applicant had given hisreplies. But the respondents proceeded with anenquiry on the basis of the charge memo dated 30.7.2007. The allegedenquiry has been conducted without following the procedureprescribed under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services(Classification, Control & Appeal)Rules,1965(hereinafter be referredto as the CCS(CC&A Rules).Further the learned counsel submits that inpursuance to the proposal for entrusting the work of modified pensionscheme, namely, One Rank One Pension to the outside agency, has beenobjected to by the Employees Associations and Service Organizationsof the Office protesting the proposal to outsource the work as well asthe suspension of one employee, there was a Dharna during theperiod from 19th December,2006 to 22nd December,2006 and 26thDecember,2006. The suspension ordered was withdrawn and on the protestshown by the employees Association, the proposal to outsource theScheme was also withdrawn which shows that the protest was justifiableand peaceful and further there was an incident in which theAccountant General (Audit Accounts & Entitlement),Kerala misbehavingwith the women employees which was given rise to them filing complaintbefore the in-house committee and to the Women's Commission and one ofthe such women employees become the wife of the applicant, oneElsamma. Because of all these things, the applicant was victimized byissuing such memos and finally the charge memo dated 27.4.2007, a copyof which is produced and marked in the O.A. as Annexure A3.The learnedcounsel further submits that the alleged enquiry conducted by theInquiring Authority is only a camouflage and the procedure prescribedunder Rule 14 of the CCS(CC&A) Rules has not been followed. There isno evidence against the applicant to prove the charge against him. Nodocuments were proved legally and all the documents marked onlythrough the Enquiry Officer and no witness has been examined to proveany of the documents relied on by the Inquiring Authority to provethe charges framed against the applicant and there was no legallyacceptable evidence whereas the Inquiring Authority has simply statedthat the charges have been proved by examining 3 witnesses and thesewitnesses are not giving any evidence to prove the charges framedagainst the applicant. If so, the evidence now accepted by theInquiring Authority to hold that the charge framed against theapplicant has been proved is without following the principles laiddown by the Apex Court reported in 1998(2) SCC 394 in Commissioner andSecretary to the Govt. and Others vs. C.Shanmugam, 1999(8) SCC 582 inHardwari Lal vs. State of U.P.and Others, 2006(5) SCC 88 in M.V.Bijlani vs. Union of India and Others and in 2009(2) JT 176 in RoopSingh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors.

5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the applicant isthat the complainant Praveen has not been examined and the original ofthe complaint has not been marked, only a copy of the complaint hasbeen produced before the Inquiring Authority. The alleged complainthas been filed on 1.12.2006 whereas it has reached the AccountantGeneral only on 9.3.2007. The delay in taking into account of thecomplaint itself is doubtful . The alleged incident was on 30.11.2006.The complainant Praveen,the author of Annexure A2 complaint has beennever examined and even not cited as a witness in the charge sheetor the list of witnesses submitted by the authorities for examination.This would show that the respondents never intended to examinethe complainant Praveen and the source of the complaint itself was notproved. Even as per the copy of the complaint it is alleged that theapplicant threatened and assaulted the complainant Praveen on30.11.2006 whereas the complaint has been seen taken intoconsideration by the Accountant General only on 9.3.2007. That delayitself creates a doubt regarding the source of the complaint or thealleged misconduct of assault committed by the applicant on30.11.2006.Further the counsel submits that none of the 3 witnesses,namely PWI to PW3, the Assistant Caretaker and the other two officialsdid not say anything about the incident alleged to have been takenplace on 30.11.2006. Even in the evidence of PW3 it is the only casethat the complainant Praveen told him that the applicant assaultedhim on 30.11.2006. With regard to the evidence of other witnesses PWIonly states that he has given only a report to the Accountant Generalregarding the incident alleged to have been taken place on 30.11.2006,but that report is not even produced before the Inquiring Authority.If so, the very source of the alleged complaint itself is doubtful. Aphotocopy of the original has been produced by the Presenting Officerand marked through him by the Inquiring Authority and marking ofthis complaint itself is not in accordance with the provisions of theEvidence Act pertaining to the marking of a document in a case.

6. The further contention of the learned counsel regarding theevidence of the witnesses pertaining to the previous statementsalleged to have been recorded during the preliminary enquiry it isalso not recorded in accordance with the provisions of the EvidenceAct as the Inquiring Authority has not marked any of the preliminarystatements as proved through the witness when PW I-3 are examined bythe Inquiring Authority. When PW 1-3 are examined by the InquiringAuthority, the Presenting Officer simply read the preliminarystatements alleged to have been given by the witnesses and asked thewitnesses whether they have given such statements or not. Though thewitnesses admitted that they have given such statements, thatpreliminary statements were not marked or produced as part of thedeposition of any of the witnesses. If so, there is no properrecording or marking of the preliminary statements alleged to havebeen given by the witnesses during the preliminary enquiry orinvestigation. Hence, according to the counsel for the applicant,there is no evidence regarding the incident of 30.11.2006, as statedin the charge memo or any preliminary statement of the witnesseshas been properly recorded.

7. The next contention of the Sr.Counsel Mr. M.K.Damodaran is thatas per the charge memo, the applicant committed the misconduct ofviolation of Rules 3 and 7 of the CCS Conduct Rules by participating in the agitation/Dharna during 19th December to 22nd December,2006. Rule 7 of the Conduct Rules only prohibits to engage himself orparticipate in any demonstration which is prejudicial to the interestsof the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State,friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency ormorality, or which involves contempt of Court, defamation orincitement to an offence. Sub rule 2 of Rule 7 prohibits only any formof strike or coercion or physical duress in connection with any matterpertaining to his service or the service of any other Governmentservant. The reply statement filed by the applicant would clearlyindicate that a peaceful agitation has been called by the employeesassociation and there was no duress or physical coercion so as toattract any violation of the above rules. Every trade union ispermitted to have peaceful agitation or Dharna with notice to theauthorities. The learned counsel also relies on judgments of the ApexCourt reported in AIR1960 SC 633, AIR 1962 SC 1166 and AIR 1963 SC822,to prove this aspect. The evidence now discussed by the InquiringAuthority would not show that there was any physical duress or attemptto cause disturbance of public tranquility at the premises of theOffice of the Accountant General because of the call of the agitationmade by the employees association.

8. The next contention of the counsel for the applicant is that thefinding of the Inquiring Authority that the applicant participated inthe Dharna or agitation called by the employees association inconnection with the suspension of one Santhosh Kumar, a SeniorAccountant from 19th to 22nd December,2006, is without anyevidence and it is only on surmises and speculation. The counselsubmits that even the reply statement and the explanation given by theapplicant would show that during the relevant days the applicant wason outdoor duty and he has not participated in the Dharna, as allegedin the charge. The conclusion of the Inquiring Authority that theapplicant participated in the Dharna/demonstration held from19.12.2006 to 22.12.2006 is based on no evidence and the relianceplaced by the Inquiring Authority to come to such a conclusion is onthe ground that PW 2 & 3 were not cross-examined by the applicantto prove his participation in the Dharna, at the same time there isrecords to show that the applicant had submitted his TA bills claimingordinary T.A for his journey from Trivandrum to Kannur on 21.12.2006and the T.A bills were also sanctioned by the authority. TheInquiring Authority missed the case of the applicant that theapplicant was on transit to the District Police Office, Kannur on22.12.2006 and he attended duties there. The Inquiry Officer alsomissed the fact that as per the defence document B3 the tour diary ofthe week ending 23.12.2006 signed by the applicant has beencountersigned by the supervising officer in the audit party and theAttendance Register D3B would also prove that the applicant was notpresent at Trivandrum or participated in the Dharna held on 19th to22nd December,2006. Hence the finding entered into by the InquiringAuthority is perverse and not based on any evidence at all.

9. Finally the learned counsel appearing for the applicant contendsthat the Appellate Authority while considering the appeal filed by theapplicant has not properly appreciated the grounds urged in the AppealMemorandum and the Appellate Order does not contain any reasons fordismissing the appeal. The applicant has urged more than 22 grounds inthe Appeal Memorandum and none of these grounds considered by theAppellate Authority. A reading of the Appellate Order does not showthat the Appellate Authority considered the appeal as per Rule27 of the CCS (CC&A)Rules by applying his mind and given answerto the grounds urged in the Appeal Memorandum. The appellant hasspecifically alleged that Annexure A2 complaint is a false one andnobody proved the same as the complainant V.K.Praveen himself was notexamined at the time of the enquiry. Even the handwriting of the saidcomplainant Praveen is entirely different from that of produced inAnnexure A2 complaint. The copy of the complaint produced and markedas Annexure A2 did not bear the initials of the Disciplinary Authorityor the complainant or even the superior officer who alleged to havebeen received the same. Further in the Appeal Memorandum the applicanthad taken a definite contention that to prove the charges 3,4 and5, no document has been produced and marking of even the documentsproduced through the Presenting Officer is not in accordance with theprovisions of the Evidence Act or even the rules and procedureprescribed under the CCS(CC&A) Rules. Further it is specificallycontended in the Appeal Memorandum that no evidence was produced toprove the incident alleged to have been taken place on 30.11.2006 at6.15 p.m. at the premises of the office of the Accountant General. Itis also urged in the Appeal Memorandum that Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A)Rules has been violated by the Inquiring Authority while recording theevidence against the applicant. None of these grounds were discussedor even given any reason for rejecting the appeal filed by theapplicant on confirming the Penalty Order by the DisciplinaryAuthority.

10. Shri O.V.Radhakrishnan, learned Sr.Counsel appearing for therespondents, has tried to meet the contention of the learning Sr.Counsel appearing for the applicant, one by one. LearnedSr.Counsel reiterating the stand taken in the reply statementsubmitted that as per the charge memo dated 30.7.07 (Annexure A5) theentire imputations and allegations levelled against the applicant havebeen stated and the main charges namely the participation of theapplicant in the agitation programme held in the main premises ofboth the Accountant General(A&E),Kerala and the Principal AccountantGeneral(Audit) on 19th December to 22nd December, 2006 in connectionwith the suspension of one Santhosh Kumar, a Senior Accountant ofAccountant General (A&E) office has been specifically stated. Furtheras per the charge memo it is alleged that the applicant whilefunctioning as Section Officer in the office of the PrincipalAccountant General(Audit),Kerala, Trivandrum abused, threatened andphysically assaulted Sri V.K.Praveen, a Group D staff of office of theAccountant General (A&E) on 30th November,2006 at 6.15 p.m. andthereby committed the misconduct of violating clause (iii)of sub rule1 of Rule 3 of CCS Conduct)Rules,1964 and further committed theviolation of Rule 7(1) of the same rules. All the 5 charges framedagainst the applicant, according to the learned counsel for therespondents have been enquired into by the Inquiring Authority andfound that all the 5 charges were proved. If so, the contention of thelearned counsel appearing for the applicant that the charge itself isa victimization of the applicant is not tenable. The counsel furthersubmits that with regard to the contention that there is no evidenceto prove the charges levelled against the applicant is not correct asthe Inquiring Authority relied on the oral evidence of PW 1 to 3 andalso the documentary evidence Exhibits A1 to A7. None of the 3witnesses examined before the Inquiring Authority has been properlycross- examined to destroy the evidence given by these witnesses or tocause any doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence given by thesewitnesses. PW 1 to 3 had specific cases before the Inquiring authoritythat they have given previous statements regarding the incident whichwere recorded at the time of preliminary enquiry and further thatstatements of the witnesses were read over to them and they haveadmitted the fact that they have given such statements at the time ofthe preliminary enquiry. These statements of the witnesses couldnot have been discredited as these witnesses were not cross-examinedor discredited by effective cross-examination by the applicant. Hencethe Inquiring Authority is justified in accepting the previousstatements of the witnesses as evidence on record. With regard to thecontention of the cross- examination of the complainant SriPraveen,learned counsel for the respondents submits that as theevidence of PW 2 and 3 would clearly indicate that the applicant waspresent on the relevant day and Sri Praveen has been assaulted by theapplicant at the premises of the Accountant General and the incidentalso has been spoken to by PW 3 who could be treated as an eye witnessto theincident. If so, the non-examination of the complainant Praveen is notthe reason to reject the evidence of the witnesses regarding theincident of assault. The learned counsel also relies on the judgmentsof the Apex Court reported in 2006(2) SCC 584, 2007(9) SCC 86 and AIR1977 SC 1512 to prove that it is not necessary to examine thecomplainant to prove an incident, if the incident is proved otherwise.The learned counsel further submits that the contention that thepresence of the applicant on the day of the incident and hisparticipation in the dharna or agitation from 19th December to 22ndDecember,2006 are not proved, is not tenable. The Inquiring Authorityhas categorically found in the enquiry report that the applicantdeserted his office and duty and participated in thedemonstration from 19th December to 22nd December, 2006 held in theoffice premises in connection with the suspension of Sri SanthoshKumar. A definite finding has been entered by the Inquiring Authoritythat the applicant was present during the demonstration from 19thto 22nd December,2006 on the basis of the evidence given by PW I whohad reported to the Sr.Accountant General and further the InquiringAuthority found that as per the documents produced from the defenceside itself would show that the applicant was physically present inTrivandrum in order to carry out his work at Police Headquarters andthe evidence of PW 3 would also show that the complaint Sri Praveenhad told him that the applicant was present on 30.11.2006 at 6.15 p.m.and assaulted him and this evidence also has been considered by theInquiring Authority. With regard to the marking of the documentsproduced by the Presenting Officer, the counsel for the respondentssubmits that as per the decisions reported in AIR 1969 SC 966 and AIR1965 SC 311, the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act is notapplicable in the departmental enquiry with regard to the evidence ormarking of evidence or documents. Further the counsel submitsthat even if any defect in the marking of the documents or conduct ofthe enquiry as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court reportedin 1993 (4) SCC 727 and 2006(2) SCC 584, this Tribunal can only remandthe case for a de novo trial and this Tribunal is not expected toquash the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Thelearned counsel further submits that it is not necessary to givereasons for the Appellate Authority at the time of confirming anorder passed by the Disciplinary Authority. It is only proper for theAppellate Authority to consider the conclusions arrived at by thefirst authority and it is not mandatory to give the reasons to confirmthe order passed by the first authority. To substantiate the abovecontention, the learned counsel for the respondents also relies on2006(4)SCC 713 and 2008(3)SCC 469.

11. On an anxious consideration of the contentions raised by thecounsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the documentsfurnished, this Tribunal has to consider whether the impugned ordersare to be upheld or not. Before answering the main arguments of thecounsel appearing for the parties, the admitted background of thecases are to be looked into. During the relevant period the Governmentof India introduced a modified pension scheme called One Rank OnePension and for the implementation of that scheme the then AccountantGeneral(Accounts & Entitlement), Kerala proposed to entrust the workof the office to outside agencies. The said proposal was objected toand protested by the employees associations and service organizationsand they discussed the matter in detail and on the basis of thedecision arrived at by the service organizations and associationsdecided to resort a peaceful means of protest by way of peacefulagitation. In connection with the above proposed agitation oneSanthosh Kumar, a Senior Accountant, has been suspended and onsuspension of that official an agitation on the organizational levelhas been called on and in persuasion of the agitation designed toprotest against the suspension of Santhosh Kumar the allegedincident of misconduct levelled against the applicant has beenoccurred, if so, the first question to be considered is that whetherthe agitation or Dharna conducted from 19th December to 22nd December,2006 was a peaceful or legal strike as against the Conduct Rules whichprohibits any of the illegal strike or dharna in violation of Rule 3or Rule 7 of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964, hereinafter be referred toas the CCS (Conduct) Rules and further question to be considered isthat whether the applicant was present in the office premises of theAccountant General and participated in the dharna or agitation andwhether on 30.11.2006 at 6.15 p.m, the applicant assaulted ShriV.K.Praveen or not. Under the above circumstances the charge memosdated 21.3.2007(Annexure A1), 16.4.2007(Annexure A3) and30.7.2007(Annexure A5) have to be analysed. As per Annexure A1memo it is alleged that on 30.11.2006 at 6.15 p.m. the applicanthit with his leg on the abdomen of Shri Praveen and the applicantthreatened him with dire consequences once AG is transferred from theplace , while the latter was returning to the section after keepingthe bag of the Accountant General in the Staff Car. The action of theapplicant amounts to a misconduct coming under clause (iii) of SubRule 1 of Rule 3 and Rule 7 of the CCS(Conduct)Rules, 1964. InAnnexure A3, it is further directed to explain within 10 days of thereceipt of the memo to show cause why disciplinary action under theCCS (CC&A) Rules,1965 and administrative action as contemplated in FR17-1and FR 17-A should not be taken against him. Apart from theallegations contained in Annexures A1 and A3 , it is alleged inAnnexure A5 charge memo that the Principal Accountant General andDisciplinary Authority proposed to hold an enquiry against theapplicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules,1965 and directed theapplicant to submit his written statement within 10 days from the dateof receipt of the charge memo. Along with the memo dated 30.07.2007 5separate Articles of Charges have been framed against theapplicant. On the basis of the above charge memo, the Statement ofImputations of misconduct in respect of the Articles of Charges framedagainst the applicant was also narrated. The Articles of above 5charges reiterate rather combined allegations contained in Annexure A1and Annexure A3 memos . For Annexure A1 and Annexure A3 memos theapplicant had filed his explanations denying the allegationslevelled against him as per the explanations offered by the applicantdated 27th March,2007 and 7th May,2007 respectively. However anenquiry has been ordered and the applicant on receipt of the notice from the Inquiring Authority filed his written statement reiteratinghis stand taken in the explanations furnished to the memos received byhim. To answer the first question whether there was any illegalstrike or any agitation as alleged in the charge memo from 19thDecember to 22nd December, 2006 in connection with the suspension ofSanthosh Kumar, the Inquiring Authority found that as per Exhibit A6there was an unauthorized dharna conducted without permission ofthe authorities. Conducting a meeting/demonstration within the officepremises without the permission of the authorities is prohibited oneand there is evidence to show that the dharna conducted was illegalone. But to substantiate this finding the Inquiring Authority reliesonly on Exhibit A6, Memo No.C. Cell/Audit/Tr.48 dated 27.4.2007 andthis is not proved by adducing any admissible evidence. Exhibit A6 wasmarked through the Presenting Officer and this document Exhibit A6produced along with the charge memo has not been properly proved toshow that the so-called dharna or agitation was irregular, illegal orwithout any permission. The written statement of the applicant inthis context has not been analyzed properly by the Inquiring Authorityor the Disciplinary Authority. The specific case set up by theapplicant in his written statement is that there was no agitation inthe office, as alleged and there was no illegal strike, coercion orphysical duress in connection with any matter pertaining to theservice of any Government servant. There was a call from the Audit andAccounts Association of Kerala office, which is a unit of the AllIndia Audit and Accounts Association, recognized by the Government ofIndia under the CCS (RS) Rules and there was a call for peacefuldemonstration and dharna and the same was very peaceful. There was nocomplaint against the demonstration and dharna from employees exceptfrom some interested corners. In the light of the above stand by theapplicant it is the duty of the Inquiring Authority and theDisciplinary Authority to prove that the strike or the dharna ordemonstration staged from 19th December to 22nd December,2006,was illegal and without permission, whereas the agitation was apeaceful one and within the rights of the trade unions resortingcollective bargain to stop the proposal for outsourcing the work ofOne Rank One Pension scheme and the suspension followed by suchprotest. The Inquiring Authority found that the applicant deserted hisduties and participated in unauthorized demonstration/dharna. On thebasis of the evidence of DW I who had stated that the dharna was inconnection with the suspension of Santhosh Kumar and the dharna wasan unauthorized mass dharna in which a large number of not less than100 persons participated. Further it is concluded by the InquiringAuthority that even if there is no evidence to show that there was acall for strike of any association during December, 2006 it is clearthat dharna of 19th to 22nd December,2006 will tantamount tostriking work by the participants since such large numberabstaining from work would naturally result in slowing down work andas per the Government of India Office Memorandum No.25/23/66-Estt(A)dated 9th December,2006, actions which would fall under the definitionof strike would include stay-in, sit-down etc. The further finding ofthe Inquiring Authority is that it is clear that the unauthorizeddharna/demonstration by such a large number or over such a longperiod was a coercive strike to pressurize the administration of theoffice to take certain steps such as revoking the suspension of ShriSanthosh Kumar. Thus the applicant participated in an unauthorizedstrike or dharna or demonstration and thereby violated clause (ii) ofRule 7 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. On a careful reading of thedepositions given by PWs 1 to 3, and the documents proved throughthe Presenting Officer would show that there was no evidence to holdthat the demonstration or dharna was illegal or any coercive stepshave been taken place. Whereas the evidence of DWs I to 3 and theexplanation given by the applicant would show that there was apeaceful agitation/dharna in connection with the suspension of SriS.V.Santhosh Kumar and there is no evidence to show that the saidagitation was illegal or it could be called as a strike or cessationof work in the office of the Accountant General. No witness has statedthat any office work has been paralyzed or affected by the agitationspoken to by DWs 1 to 3. Even if such a violent demonstration orstrike occurred and the applicant participated therein, it should beproved by legally acceptable evidence . Staging a dharna or anagitation on the call made by the Service Associations of EmployeesOrganizations is not in violation of Rule 7 of the CCS(Conduct) Rules.At the same time to have an association or to have a collectivebargaining on the organizational level is permissible and within thefundamental right of the employees guaranteed as per Article 19 of theConstitution of India as well as the Service Rules permitting theGovernment employees to have a trade union or an organization toprotect their grievance or to show protest against any order or actionon the side of the employer and this is clear from the judgments ofthe Apex Court reported in AIR 1962 SC 1166; Kameshwar Prasad &others vs. State of Bihar and AIR 1963 SC 822; O.K.Ghosh and anothervs. E.X.Joseph. In the first case, the Apex Court considered Rule 4 ofthe Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules,1956 which prohibits anyform of demonstration and against resorting to strike.The Apex Court on considering the issue raised therein held inparagraph 13 of the judgment, as follows:- " (13)The first question that falls to be considered iswhether the right to make a "demonstration" is covered by either orboth of the two freedoms guaranteed by Art.19(1)(a) and19(1)(b). A "demonstration" is defined in the Concise OxfordDictionary as "an outward exhibition of feeling, as an exhibition ofopinion on political or other question especially a publicmeeting or procession". In Webster it is defined as "a publicexhibition by a party sect or society .......... ..... as by a paradeor mass- meeting. Without going very much into the niceties oflanguage it might be broadly stated that a demonstration is avisible manifestation of the feelings or sentiments of an individualor a group. It is thus a communication of one's ideas to others towhom it is intended to be conveyed. It is in effect therefore a formof speech or of expression, because speech need not be vocal sincesigns made by a dumb person would also be a form of speech.It has however to be recognized that the argument before us isconfined to the rule prohibiting demonstration which is a form ofspeech and expression or of a mere assembly and speeches therein andnot other forms of demonstration which do not fall within the contentof Art.19(1)(a) or 19 (1)(b). A demonstration might take the form ofan assembly and even then the intention is to convey to the personor authority to whom the communication is intended the feelings ofthe group which assembles. It necessarily follows that there are forms of demonstration which would fall within the freedomsguaranteed by Art.19(1)(a) & 19(1)(b). It is needless to add that fromthe very nature of things a demonstration may take various forms; itmay be noisy and disorderly, for instance stone-throwing by a crowdmay be cited as an example of a violent and disorderly demonstrationand this would not obviously be within Art.19(1)(a) or (b). It canequally be peaceful and orderly such as happens when the members ofthe group merely wear some badge drawing attention to theirgrievances."So also the same question was considered by the Apex Court inO.K.Ghosh's case, cited supra, wherein the Apex Court upheld thefundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution ofIndia can be claimed by the Government servants. In the above judgmentin paragraphs 10 and 11, the Apex Court held as follows:-

" (10)This argument raises the problem ofconstruction of cl.(4).Can it be said that the rule imposes areasonable restriction in the interests of public order ? There canbe no doubt that Government servants can be subjected to rules whichare intended to maintain discipline amongst their ranks and to lead o an efficientdischarge of their duties. Discipline amongst Government employeesand their efficiency may in a sense, be said to be related to publicorder. But in considering the scope of cl.(4), it has to be borne inmind that the rule must be in the interests of public orderand must amount to a reasonable restriction. The words "publicorder"occur even in cl.(2),which refers, inter alia, to security ofthe State and public order. There can be no doubt that the saidwords must have the samemeaning in both cls.(2) and (4). So far as cl.(2) is concerned,security of the State having been expressly and specifically providedfor, public order cannot include the security of State, though in itswidest sense it may be capable of including the said concept.Therefore, in cl.(2), public order is virtually synonymous withpublic peace, safety and tranquility. The denotation of the saidwords cannot be any wider in cl.(4). That is one consideration which it is necessary to bear in mind. When cl.(4) refers to therestriction imposed in the interests of public order, it is necessaryto enquire as to what is the effect of the words "in the interestsof". This clause again cannot be interpreted to mean that even if theconnection between the restriction and the public order is remoteand indirect the restriction can be said to be in the interests ofpublic order. A restriction can be said to be in the interests ofpublic order only if the connection between the restriction and thepublic order is proximate and direct. Indirect or far-fetched orunreal connection between the restriction and public order wouldnot fall within the purview of the expression "in the interests ofpublic order". This interpretation is strengthened by the otherrequirement of cl.(4) that, by itself, the restriction ought to bereasonable. It would be difficult to hold that a restriction whichdoes not directly relate to public order can be said to be reasonableon the ground that its connection with public order is remote orfar-fetched. That is another consideration which is relevant.Therefore, reading the two requirements of cl. (4), it follows thatthe impugned restriction can be said to satisfy the test of cl.(4)only if its connection with public order is shown to be rationallyproximate and direct. That is the view taken by this Court inSuperintendent,Central Prison, Fatehgarh v. Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia AIR1960 SC 633.In the words of Patanjali Sastri J.in Rex v. Basudev, 1949FCR 657 at p 661:(AIR 1950 FC 67 at p.69)"the connection contemplatedbetween the restriction and public order must be real and proximate,not far-fetched or problematical." It is in the light of this legalposition that the validity of the impugned rule must bedetermined.

(11) It is not disputed that the fundamental rights guaranteedby Art.19 can be claimed by Government servants. Art.33 which conferspower on the Parliament to modify the rights in their applicationto the Armed Forces, clearly brings out the fact that all citizens,including Government servants, are entitled to claim the rightguaranteed by Art.19. Thus, the validity of the impugned rule has tobe judged on the basis that the respondent and his co-employees areentitled to form associations or unions. It is clear that R.4-Bimposes a restriction on this right. It virtually compels aGovernment servant to withdraw his membership of the ServiceAssociation of Government servants as soon as recognition accorded tothe said association is withdrawn or if, after the association isformed, no recognition is accorded to it within six months. In otherwords, the right to form an association is conditioned by theexistence of the recognition of the said association by theGovernment. If the association obtains the recognition and continuesto enjoy it, Government servants can become members of thesaid association; if the association does not secure recognitionfrom the Government, or recognition granted to it is withdrawn,Government servants must cease to be the members of the saidassociation. That is the plain effect of the impugned rule. Can thisrestriction be said to be in the interests of public order and can itbe said to be a reasonable restriction? In our opinion, the onlyanswer to these questions would be in the negative. It is difficultto see any direct or proximate or reasonable connection between therecognition by the Government of the association and the disciplineamongst, and the efficiency of the members of the saidassociation. Similarly, it is difficult to see any connection betweenrecognition and public order.

12. The next point we have to consider that the finding entered intoby the Disciplinary Authority that the applicant participated in thedemonstration alleged to have been conducted from the 19th to 22ndDecember,2006 and the applicant threatened and assaulted ShriV.K.Praveen, on 30.11.2006 at 6.15 p.m. at the office premises of theAccountant General, are supported by any acceptable evidence ormaterial. In this regard the Inquiring Authority relied on theevidence of PWs 2 and 3 But these 2 witnesses have not given anyevidence to prove that the applicant has participated in the dharnafrom the 19th to 22nd Dcember,2006 or assaulted Shri V.K.Praveen on30.11.2006. What they have stated is that they have given somestatements at the time of preliminary enquiry held on 16th May,2007 before the Sr.Deputy Accountant General,Kerala in which theyhave stated that the applicant had physically assaulted ShriV.K.Praveen and verbally abused and threatened him.To accept theprevious statements of these witnesses the Inquiring Authority foundthat these witnesses were not cross-examined at the time of theenquiry. But the specific case set up by the learned counsel appearingfor the applicant is that none of the previous statementsalleged to have been recorded by the Sr.Deputy Accountant General hasbeen legally proved or even marked at the time of the enquiry. Insteadthe witnesses were asked in the chief whether they have such astatement on reading the alleged previous statements to thewitnesses which the witnesses admitted, but there is no recording ofsuch previous statements as evidenced in their depositions. If thereliance placed by the Inquiring Authority on the previous statements,alleged to have been given by the witnesses during the preliminaryenquiry, cannot be accepted as legal evidence. Further the InquiringAuthority held that the documents produced and proved through thePresenting Officer marked as Annexures A1, A5 and A6 would show thatthe applicant was present and participated in the dharna held between19th and 22nd December,2006. When we analyze these documents, whichwould show that Annexure A1 is only a note of the Dy.AccountantGeneral dated 9.3.2007 and Annexure A5 is another note of theDy.Accountant General dated 19.1.2007 and Annexure A6 is the copy ofthe memo dated 27.4.2007 to the applicant and all these documentswould not show that the applicant was actually present or participatedin the dharna as found by the Inquiring Authority and further AnnexureA5 would show that it is a note showing the name of the applicant whowas signatory to the note for calling a dharna but that does not meanthat the applicant was actually present at the spot orparticipated in the dharna held on the 19th to 22ndDecember,2006.Annexure A5 itself is a part of the notice dated9.1.2007 and the call for agitational steps by the audit andaccounts associations notice is dated 18.12.2006 If so, theappearance of the name of one Manuel, even without identifying that isthe applicant, cannot be accepted as an evidence to prove that theapplicant was present at the premises of the Accountant General officeand participated in the dharna held on the 19th to 22nd December,2006.At the same time the explanation given by the applicant would showthat he was on outdoor duty during the relevant time and he claimedTA&DA for the the relevant days which were granted by the authorities.But the Inquiring Authority answered the said case set up by theapplicant stating that the defence has not proved any evidence tosupport its claim that the charged officer was not present at thealleged scene of occurrence of the incident in question. It is alsoof the case of the applicant that the applicant was on official dutyallotted to him in outside audit wing on 19th and 20th December,2006and he was on outside audit duty at the Police Headquarters,Trivandrum on the 21st December,2006 and he was on transit to DistrictPolice Office, Kannur on 22nd December,2006 To prove this fact theapplicant produced D3 series which would dhow that the tour diary ofthe week ending 23.12.006 signed by the applicant and countersigned bythe supervising officer in the audit party, the attendanceregister of the audit party and watch register maintained at SRAheadquarters and all these documents would show that the applicantwas present at the spot as found by the Inquiring Authority. Toovercome these documentary evidences the Inquiring Authorityheld that marking one's attendance on a particular day in theAttendance Register cannot be considered as a conclusive proof that heattended the office during the entire day and told as the applicantadmitted that he was at Trivandrum on the 20th December,2006 tocarry out the work at the Police Headquarters, the InquiringAuthority came to the conclusion that the applicant was present ormight have been present at the premises of the office of theAccountant General and participated in the dharna. But these findingsare not supported by any material or evidence as acceptable forentering such a finding. It is also to be noted that the InquiringAuthority considered the copy of the complaint alleged to have beenfiled by Shri V.K.Praveen regarding the assault made by the applicantand the evidence of PW 3 to support the finding that the applicant waspresent at the spot and assaulted Sri V.K.Praveen. In this context thevery inception of P2 the complaint alleged to have been filed by ShriV.K.Praveen itself is doubtful as the author of the complaint has notbeen examined or even cited for examination at the time of enquiry. Toavoid the examination of Shri V.K.Praveen no explanation isforthcoming from the prosecution side and that apart the saidcomplaint filed by Shri V.K.Praveen is dated 1.12.2006, whereas it hasreached the Accountant General or acted on by the Accountant Generalonly on 9.4.2007 and such a long delay for not taking any action inthe complaint filed by Shri V.K.Praveen is enough to discard thisdocument as a genuine one. In this context the learned counsel for therespondents relies on the judgements of the Apex Court reported in1998(7) SCC 97; Director General, Indian Council of Medical Researchand others vs. Dr.Anil Kumar Ghosh and another and 1999(8)SCC 582;Hardwari Lal vs. State of U.P. & others. In the first case, it is heldby the Apex Court that the genuineness of documents produced duringthe enquiry was not in dispute and therefore their authors need not beexamined and if opportunities are given to the delinquent officer toinspect the documents during the course of enquiry omission to marksuch exhibits during the course of the enquiry did not vitiate theenquiry. In the second case the Apex Court taken the view that ifthere are other materials sufficient to come to a conclusion one wayor the other, observing the impact of the complainant's testimonycould not be visualized and also evidence of other witnesses aresufficient to prove the charge against the delinquent officer, thenon-examination of the complainant will not vitiate the enquiry. Butwhen analyzing the evidence of the case in hand, the facts consideredby the Apex Court in the above two cases are entirely different fromthat the facts under discussion. If the evidence of Shri Praveen isexcluded and what other witnesses namely PWs 1 to 3 given, by itselfis not enough to conclude that the applicant was present and assaultedor threatened Shri V.K.Praveen. In this regard the evidence of PW Iwould show that he had given a report to the Dy.Accountant Generalregarding the incident and what is the contents of that report is notspoken to by any witness before the Inquiring Authority. Sri Praveenhad told him that the applicant threatened and and assaulted him on30.11.2006. But the evidence of these witnesses is not substantial orcorroborated by other evidence and being an unsupported piece forconcluding that the applicant was present at the spot and assaultedShri V.K.Praveen. If so, a close reading of the documentary evidenceproduced and marked through the Presenting Officer and the evidence ofPWs 1 to 3 are not legally acceptable evidence to prove any of thecharge levelled against the applicant. Hence the findingentered into by the Inquiring Authority is a perverse finding. Ifthere is no acceptable evidence to prove the charges against theapplicant it is only proper for us to take a conclusion that thecharges levelled against the applicant are not proved by any legallyacceptable evidence. The same is the principle involved in other casesalso. So we are not accepting the same in the light of the facts ofthe case in hand. Non-examination of the material witness can draw anadverse inference as per the judgment of the Apex Court held in AIR1968 SC 1402 in Karnesh Kumar Singh and others vs. State of U.P.

13. The next point we have to consider is that whether theDisciplinary Authority has applied his mind while passing theimpugned order of removal from service on the basis of the enquiryreport. The Disciplinary Authority has not given any reason toaccept the findings entered into the Inquiring Authority whileimposing the penalty order except accepting the report of theinquiring Authority without assigning any reason. A reading of theimpugned order of penalty, namely Annexure AIX order would show thatthe finding of the Inquiring Authority is simply followed and withoutgiving any reason or applying its mind for issuing the penalty orderof dismissal of the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority erred inaccepting the evidence of DW I and DW 2 who had given evidence beforethe Inquiring Authority that if the applicant was present in theoffice he would have participated in the congregation. But thisfinding has been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority on the groundthat as there is evidence to show that the applicant was present atthe Headquarters on that day and this finding of the DisciplinaryAuthority is without any basis and further the Disciplinary Authorityfound that there is reasonable nexus in the evidence of PWs 2 and 3regarding the incident and their credibility has not been challengedby cross- examining them. We have already discussed the evidence ofPWs 2 and 3 regarding the veracity of their evidence and the non-examination of the complainant Shri V.K.Praveen itself was also foundas a ground for rejection of the charges levelled against theapplicant. But the Disciplinary Authority only had stated that he hasonly concurred with the finding of the Inquiring Authority and all thecharges levelled against the applicant have been thus provedaccording to the Disciplinary Authority, but we have already discussedeach and every evidence adduced before the Inquiring Authority againstthe applicant and we have concluded that there is no evidence to proveany of the charges levelled against the aplicant. In the abovecircumstances, the impugned order of penalty passed by theDisciplinary Authority is not sustainable. Apart from the aboveinfirmity of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, it couldbe seen that the applicant has filed an appeal before the AppellateAuthority raising various grounds th rein, a copy of which wasproduced and marked in the O.A. as Annexure A10. In Annexure A10 theapplicant has raised more than 10 grounds to reject the findingentered into by the Inquiring Authority and also to set aside theorder passed by the Disciplinary Authority. But it is surprisinglynoted by us that none of the grounds in the appeal memorandum has beenconsidered by the Appellate Authority. No reason has been stated bythe Appellate Authority for confirming the penalty order passed by theDisciplinary Authority. In this context the judgements of the ApexCourt reported in 2006 (4)SCC 713; in Narinder Mohan Arya vs. UnitedIndia Insurance Co.Ltd, and 2008(3)SCC 469;Divisional Forest Officer,Kothaguden and others vs. Madhusudhan Rao, are relevant. In the firstcase, the Apex Court held in paras 32 and 33, as follows:-

"32. The Appellate Authority, therefore, while disposing of theappeal is required to apply his mind with regard to the factorsenumerated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 37 of the Rules.The judgment of the civil court being inter parties was relevant. Theconduct of the appellant as noticed by the civil court was alsorelevant. The fact that the respondent has accepted the said judgmentand acted upon it would be a relevant fact. The authority consideringthe memorial could have justifiably come to a different conclusionhaving regard to the findings of the civil court. But, it did notapply its mind. It could have for one reason or the other refused totake the subsequent event into consideration, but as he had adiscretion in the matter, he was bound to consider the said question.He was required to show that he applied his mind to the relevantfacts. He could not have without expressing his mind simply ignoredthe same.

33. An appellate order if it is in agreement with that of thedisciplinary authority may not be a speaking order hut the authoritypassing the same must show that there had been proper application ofInd on his part as regards the compliance with the requirements of lawwhile exercising his jurisdiction under Rule 37 of the Rules."Further, the Apex Court, in para-36 of the said judgment, whileconsidering Rule 37 of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline andAppeal)Rules,1975, an analogous provision of Rule 27 of the CCS(CC&A)Rules,1965 held that:- "The Appellate Authority, when the Rules require application ofmind on several factors and serious contentions have been raised, wasbound to assign reasons so as to enable the writ court to ascertainas to whether he had applied his mind to the relevant factors whichthe statute requires him to do. The expression "consider" is ofsome significance. In the context of the Rules, the AppellateAuthority was required to see as to whether (i) the procedure laiddown in the Rules was complied with; (ii) the enquiry officer wasjustified in arriving at the finding that the delinquent officer wasguilty of the misconduct alleged against him; and (iii) whetherpenalty imposed by the disciplinary authority was excessive." In the2nd case, the Apex Court while considering Rule 27 of theCCS(CC&A)Rules, held in para-20, as follows:- "20. It is no doubt also true that an appellate or revisionalauthority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing andconfirming an order passed by the lower forum but, in our view, in theinterests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know atleast the mind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissinghis appeal and/or revision. It is true that no detailed reasons arerequired to be given, but some brief reasons should be indicated evenin an order affirming the views of the lower forum."

In this context the learned Sr.Counsel appearing for therespondents also brought to the notice of this Tribunal to ajudgment of the Apex Court reported in JT 2009(2) SC 176 in Roop SinghNegi vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors, wherein the Apex Court consideredthe extent of the duty of the Disciplinary Authority or the AppellateAuthority and contended that the Disciplinary Authority as wellas the Appellate Authority are not bound to give all the reasons insupport of their finding. But a reading of the above judgment wouldshow that a decision must be arrived at on some evidence which islegally admissible. Further it is stated that though the provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmentalproceeding but the principles of natural justice should be followedespecially when a report of the Enquiry Officer was based on merelyipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not havebeen sustained, since the inferences drawn by the Enquiry Officer wereapparently not supported by any evidence. We have already concludedthat to prove the charges levelled against the applicant, there wereno material or any evidence available on record and if so, thefindings entered into by the Inquiring Authority, basing on which theorders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by theAppellate Authority, would become a nullity.

14. In the light of the discussions made in this order and thefindings entered, we are of the considered view that the impugnedorders are not sustainable and hence they are liable to be set asideand the applicant shall be exonerated from all the charges levelledagainst him. Accordingly the Application is allowed. Annexure AIXorder of the Disciplinary Authority, and Annexure XI order of theAppellate Authority, are hereby set aside and the respondents arehereby directed to reinstate the applicant in service forthwithwith all consequential benefits. There will be no order as to costs.